Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioners and the stand of the State are common and, as such, with consent of the parties, they have been heard together for final disposal by this common order. 2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners, who were daily wagers since prior to 1.4.1985. are aggrieved by their retrenchment. 3. In short, the case of the petitioners is that all of them were engaged in the service before 1st August, 1985, the cut-off date fixed by the Government. In fact, most of the petitioners have served for more than 20 years regularly without any break. (Annexure 1 to C.W.J.C. No. 877 of 2002 is the copy of the chart containing the details of the petitioners). They were always assured by the competent authority of the State for their regularisation in service. According to the petitioners. many persons junior to them have been retained in service at different places whereas the petitioners, who were appointed in 1981-82, have been removed. It is alleged that the authorities have violated the principle of last come first go. One of the examples cited is that of one Bijay Kumar Mandal, who was appointed as Chowkidar with effect from 1.5.1984, has been retained in service whereas the petitioners who were appointed in between 1981-82 have been removed. It is contended that the cadre of Pump Operator, Pump Khalasi. Chowkidar, Work Sarkar/Office Peon and other Class IV employees is State cadre as is evident from the seniority list, which has been prepared jointly of the entire State. 4. Further case of the petitioners is that the State Government, vide its resolution dated 18th June, 1993 (Annexure 4 to C.W.J.C. No. 16099 of 2001) decided to retrench all daily wagers engaged after 1.8.1985 and with respect to those who, completed at least 240 days of their engagement prior to 1.8.1985, the State Government decided to give them preference in the matter of appointment in regular service if other conditions are identical. Undisputedly, these petitioners were working till their retrenchment in the vear 2001-02 and some are still continuing by virture of interim order passed by the High Court. Undisputedly, these petitioners were working till their retrenchment in the vear 2001-02 and some are still continuing by virture of interim order passed by the High Court. Later, by another Government resolution dated 10th May, 2005 (Annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 16.8.2005) the cut-off date was extended from 1.8.1985 to 11.12.1990 and a committee, comprising five Commissioners/Secretaries of the Government of Bihar. such as, the Finance Commissioner, the Commissioner and Secretary, Water Resources Department, the Commissioner and Secretary, Labour. Employment and Training Department, the Secretary. Law Department, and the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, was also constituted to frame scheme for removal of the difficulties in the matter of absorption of such daily wagers. The said committee was to be headed by the seniormost officer and the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department was made convener. Apart from the aforementioned scheme, the committee was also required to consider the cases of such daily wagers who were engaged up to 11.12.1990 and later removed in the light of the Government resolution after August, 1993 for regularisation. The committee was required to submit its report within three months. The resolution dated 18.6.1993 was accordingly modified. 5. The aforementioned, period of three months lapsed on 10th August, 2005. but perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State shows that there has hardly been any progress in the matter. However, according to the State, the petitioners engagement was for the Lift Irrigation Schemes and presently only 250 Lift Irrigation Schemes are functional against a total of more than 1750 schemes and as such, as a matter of policy, it was decided that those daily wagers working against such break down schemes should be disengaged as no work is available due to break down of number of schemes. In fact, no such policy decision has been brought on the record. However, it is further vaguely contended that since no work is available. continuance of daily wagers will cause heavy burden on the exchequer. The petitioners, thus, have been disengaged. Their another stand is that the petitioners appointment was not against sanctioned vacant posts and that no sanctioned vacant post is available. Apart from this, the stand of the State is that the petitioners were appointed without following the procedures and rules. continuance of daily wagers will cause heavy burden on the exchequer. The petitioners, thus, have been disengaged. Their another stand is that the petitioners appointment was not against sanctioned vacant posts and that no sanctioned vacant post is available. Apart from this, the stand of the State is that the petitioners were appointed without following the procedures and rules. It is also contended that though the Governments decision dated 18.6.1993 provides for a cut-off date, but that does not mean that all working prior to that date cannot be terminated and have to be regularised. However, it is not disputed that the persons engaged after these petitioners have been retained in service. 6. In the present case, the petitioners have continued for over 20 years even after the cut-off date, yet instead of considering their cases for regularisation in the light of the Government decision, the authorities concerned disengaged them in utter violation of the said Government resolution itself from reading whereof it is quite clear that the decision was only to retrench those who were engaged after 1.8.1985. which was later extended to 11.12.1990 and not those who were engaged prior thereto. In fact, the service of those who completed 240 days are to be considered for regularisation. 7. In the case of Pren Ram V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2005(1) PLJR 327 . it has been held that after issuance of Government resolution dated 18.6.1993, if the authorities so desired they ought to have terminated the engagement of the petitioners on the ground that they were engaged after 1.8.1985 (the cut-off date fixed by the Government), but having allowed those petitioners to continue as Class IV daily rated workers tor about 11 years even after issuance of resolution dated 18.6.1993. the respondent-authorities should not terminate their appointment rather they should consider them for granting preference over outsiders against Class IV posts. 8. In fact, earlier several writ applications, including the one filed by Laghu Sichai Karamchari Sangh and others were filed in this Court claiming regularisation as per the scheme and, further, seeking direction for payment of the minimum of time scale of pay even before the regularisation of the services. 8. In fact, earlier several writ applications, including the one filed by Laghu Sichai Karamchari Sangh and others were filed in this Court claiming regularisation as per the scheme and, further, seeking direction for payment of the minimum of time scale of pay even before the regularisation of the services. The said writ applications were allowed by the learned single Judge and while directing implementation of the scheme of regularisation gave further direction for payment of the minimum of the time scale of pay even before the regularisation of service and the, appeal preferred against it was dismissed by the Division Bench as time barred. The State of Bihar filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18164 of 1999, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court, vide order dated 30th October, 2000, contained in Annexure 7. In the said order, the Supreme Court has taken note of the facts that the writ petitioners-respondents were daily wagers working as Chowkidars, Pump Operators etc. and they had been so appointed during the period 1980 to 1985. The Supreme Court has also taken note of the scheme framed by the State of Bihar on 18.6.1993 to regularise the service of the employees, who were working an the cut-off date, namely, 1.8.1985. The Supreme Court having found that the State was aggrieved by the direction for payment of minimum of the time scale even before the regularisation was made set aside that part of the direction given by the learned single Judge whereby the State was directed that pending regularisation of those daily wage workers, they should be given the minimum of the pay scale. 9. The writ petitioner-respondents filed a list prepared on 25.10.1991 of those employees, who were working for more than 240 days. However, according to the State, there was only 274 posts while the daily wagers are large. in number, which was denied in the counter affidavit filed by the writ petitioners-respondents. The State also took the plea of advertisement and following of the reservation system under the scheme subject to which, according to the State. regularisation could be done by the duly constituted committee. in number, which was denied in the counter affidavit filed by the writ petitioners-respondents. The State also took the plea of advertisement and following of the reservation system under the scheme subject to which, according to the State. regularisation could be done by the duly constituted committee. The Apex Court did not interfere with the continuance of such daily wagers and considering the said facts, directed that the regularization of the writ petitioners should be done in accordance with the procedure indicated in the scheme dated 18.6.1993 and it should apply to the persons who satisfy the conditions mentioned in the scheme. The Apex Court gave specific Direction to the State of Bihar to take steps to Constitute necessary committee and to take expeditious steps to implement the scheme depending upon the number of vacancies available from time to time. 10. This Court in course of hearing of these matters on 17.11.2005 expressed anguish that despite the aforementioned Governments decision. no further steps have been taken in the matter by the Government to ensure implementation of its decision, which shows gross callousness on the part of the State Authorities. As per the Constitution of India, State being welfare State was obliged to ensure implementation of its decision or the survival of the petitioners and also for doing justice with them from whom work is being taken for over (20 long years and now at the fag-end of their Life when they have no other option and some nave become overage, they have been disengaged/retrenched. This Court considering the above facts asked the learned Additional Advocate General No. III as to what steps have been taken since the direction was given by the Apex Court on 30.10.2000 and, further, whether any appointment has been made in different departments of the Government against Class IV posts after June, 1993, upon which he prayed for two weeks time to take instructions, which was allowed and the matter was adjourned for two weeks. The State authorities were directed to come with clear case by filing further counter affidavit as to whether there was any appointment made in any of the Departments of the Government after June, 1993 and, further, as to whether the case of any of these petitioners was considered for giving preference over outsiders in compliance of the Government resolution. 11. The State authorities were directed to come with clear case by filing further counter affidavit as to whether there was any appointment made in any of the Departments of the Government after June, 1993 and, further, as to whether the case of any of these petitioners was considered for giving preference over outsiders in compliance of the Government resolution. 11. On 19.1.2006 a supplementary counter affidavit was filed and perusal thereof shows that some daily wagers have been regularised in Class IV without considering the cases of the petitioners and others in the light of the Government decision. However, in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 27.1.2006, the details regarding class IV vacancies only in some of the departments have been furnished, which shows that in all 895 vacancies are available in class IV. In subsequent supplementary counter affidavits filed on behalf of the State further time has been sought for to identify the vacancies and take steps for filling them in the light of the Government decision. In fact various affidavits filed on behalf of the State shows that the State authorities themselves are not fully equipped with exact number of vacancies filled up after June, 1993 and as to how many of them are presently available in class IV in various departments. 12. Despite ample opportunities, the details relating to vacancies in different departments have not been furnished. However, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed on 24.2.2006 furnishing some details in Annexure C attached thereto, perusal whereof shows that it is incomplete and, in fact, misleading. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the said incomplete details are also not correct and self-contradictory. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to various documents and affidavits filed on behalf of the State. 13. The petitioners in their reply affidavits have furnished the vacancies position in the Minor Irrigation Department at serial Nos. 1 to 50. Serial No. 1 to 34 are in respect of Minor Irrigation Offices while serial Nos. 35 to 50 are related to Tubewell Division, which have been admitted in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State on 30.3.2006. 14. 1 to 50. Serial No. 1 to 34 are in respect of Minor Irrigation Offices while serial Nos. 35 to 50 are related to Tubewell Division, which have been admitted in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State on 30.3.2006. 14. On 31.3.2006 the learned Additional Advocate General No. III appearing for the State and its officials again sought adjournment to take further instruction in the matter in the light of the recent Governnent decision dated 10.5.2005 (Annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit) regarding consideration of the cases of the petitioners for taking them back in service from where their services were terminated/retrenched. On his request, the matter was adjourned but unfortunately nothing has been brought on record in that regard. However, learned Additional Advocate General No. III appearing for the State has ventured to submit that the daily wagers have no right to continue in service and in support of this, he has placed reliance on various decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court. 15. There cannot be any dispute that daily wagers have no right to continue in employment and can be removed any time but at the same time, learned Additional Advocate General has completely forgotten that even while removing the daily wagers, principle of last come first go is to be applied and for which the State is required to maintain a list. In the present case, the State itself is not aware about the vacancies position except that it has been vaguely stated that there is no vacancy available when, according (to their own affidavit. referred to above, 895 vacancies are available in Class IV. Apart from this, the State is bound by its own promise and policy decision of the year 1993, which itself shows that the retrenchment of only those daily wagers were to be done who were engaged after 1.8.1985, by which the Government obviously meant not to terminate/disengage those who were engaged prior to 1.8.1985. Otherwise there was no question of the State only directing that the daily wagers appointed after 1.8.1985 should be. retrenched. In fact, the services of those who were engaged prior to 1.8.1985 and had completed 240 days were to be considered for regularisation. Apparently, this decision was taken by the Government considering the long services of such employees, including the petitioners of the present case. retrenched. In fact, the services of those who were engaged prior to 1.8.1985 and had completed 240 days were to be considered for regularisation. Apparently, this decision was taken by the Government considering the long services of such employees, including the petitioners of the present case. Petitioners have rendered long service of 20 years without break. In fact, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nar Singh Pal V/s. Union of India and Ors. reported in -, even. the casual workers who have worked for about ten years acquire the status of semi-permanent and in their cases also Art. 311 of the Constitution of India was invoked. 16. Apart from this, I do not find any substance in any of the above mentioned plea taken on behalf of the State that these petitioners were appointed against Lift Irrigation Schemes, number of which has reduced and as such no work is available or that they were not appointed against sanctioned post and that the sanctioned post is not available. In fact, the 1993 policy decision of the State Government does not talk of regularisation of daily wagers under any particular scheme on any particular post. 17. The State Government having regard to the fact that such daily wagers have rendered long service decided for bringing them in regular service of the State Government against the regular vacancy by giving them preference over others from open market. Thus, the plea of closure of certain Lift Irrigation Schemes and that they have not been appointed against the sanctioned posts or non-availability of sanctioned posts are not at all tenable. As per the 1993 policy decision of the State Government. The vacancies in the entire State were to be identified and all such daily wagers who were engaged prior to 1.8.1985 are to be adjusted by considering their cases for bringing them in regular service. But despite the decision of the Supreme Court given on 30th October. 2000, vide Annexure 7 , to take steps to constitute necessary committee and to take expeditious steps to implement the scheme, the State has come out only with vague and lame excuses ignoring the direction of even the Apex Court. 18. But despite the decision of the Supreme Court given on 30th October. 2000, vide Annexure 7 , to take steps to constitute necessary committee and to take expeditious steps to implement the scheme, the State has come out only with vague and lame excuses ignoring the direction of even the Apex Court. 18. I am unable to appreciate as to how the State has taken the plea that the appointments of these petitioners were made without following the procedures and rules in order to defend their inaction in the matter oil implementation of the Scheme formulated by them for regularisation of service of daily wagers appointed till 1.8.1985, which was later extended to 11.12.1990. It goes without saving that over 20 years back when there were dearth of candidates, daily wagers were appointed to meet the requirement of work. Nothing has been brought on record to show that any rule was prescribed for engagement of such daily wagers. Thus, in my opinion, there is no substance in the plea of the State that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages without following the rules and the procedures, Moreover, such plea after the policy decision of the Government is wholly untenable. 19. It is well settled that the State can take a policy decision for such regularisation and it is really unfortunate that the implementing authorities do not appreciate compliance of such policy decision and take such frivolous plea to defend their inaction in the matter of implementation of the policy decision. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1994(2) BLJ 499 , held that the question of validity of appointment cannot be opened after 12 years and quashed the termination order. 20. In any view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be highly inequitable and against all canons of justice to disengage/retrench/remove these petitioners from service by one stroke of pen, especially on the face of the promise made by the State to consider them for regularisation. 20. In any view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it will be highly inequitable and against all canons of justice to disengage/retrench/remove these petitioners from service by one stroke of pen, especially on the face of the promise made by the State to consider them for regularisation. Apart from this, in my opinion, the orders of disengagement/retrenchment of these petitioners from service are also violative of Articles 14 and 16 and also Art. 311 of the Constitution of India and the basic principles of natural justice, besides contemptuous in the light of the direction given by the Apex Court in Annexure 7 which has not been carried out even after lapse of almost six long years. 21. In the result, all the writ applications are allowed. The impugned orders regarding the disengagement/retrenchment/removal of these petitioners are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for their regularisation in the light of the aforementioned direction of the Supreme Court and complete the entire process within four months from today. In the facts and circumstances. however, there shall be no order as to costs